Talk:Van Buren (disambiguation)

Requested move 29 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus, supported by the evidence, that Martin Van Buren is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for this term. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Van Buren → Van Buren (disambiguation) – President Martin Van Buren is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT Prisencolin (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Presidential redirects are a bit of a hot-button topic right now, and I can see why this was proposed, but most people typing "Van Buren" probably aren't looking for the 19th-century president. ONR (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Old Naval Rooftops, how sure are you about that? Given that the article about the president gets thousands of views per day, and the other uses combined get a fraction of that, what makes you think that "most people typing "Van Buren" probably aren't looking for the 19th-century president"? --В²C ☎ 02:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So would either comment here like to supply evidence or what. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose who? Sorry. Place names are many and freedom of choice is by far more user friendly. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In ictu oculi, is your position that the president is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Van Buren"? If so, on what grounds? If not, are you invoking WP:IAR? On what grounds? Do you have a policy/guideline basis to oppose, or this a WP:JDLI !vote? --В²C ☎ 02:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that "who? Sorry. Place names are many and freedom of choice is by far more user friendly." was self-explanatory as a response to the proposal "President Martin Van Buren is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT". I also don't see why my response has been singled out for a charge of Wikipedia:I just don't like it when others have expressed the same three points. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice deflection. I'll take that to mean you don't have a policy/guideline reason to oppose. I presume the same for the others who oppose without referring to policy or guidelines as basis for their opposition and urge the closer to weigh your !votes accordingly. --18:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this Born2cycle? Could you please not make personal comments such as "Nice deflection" in discussions on Talk Pages. I and other users have made it clear why we do not feel that directing any link or search for Van Buren to Martin Van Buren will not assist all readers. I don't see the need to flog the subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't personal (why do you take it that way?); it's an accurate assessment of your comment ("de·flect verb to cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course"). I asked you a very simple and direct question. You ignored it and wrote about something else. Your answer is a deflection. Anyway, now everyone, including the closer, knows that your opposition is based on feelings rather than policy, guidelines or even facts. Thanks for clearing that up. --В²C ☎ 17:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A lower-tier president with a relatively common name. Presidential surnames are listed alphabetically and chronologically at Talk:Trump (card games)#Presidential surnames checklist, which indicates that only four recent U.S. presidents (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Obama), all of whom served within the past 65 years, have direct surname links. The fifth, Talk:Trump#Redirect to Donald Trump, has closed yesterday as "no consensus", but will probably continue to be discussed regarding this and myriad other topics over at least the next four or eight years. It does not appear that the Van Buren proposal has any possibility of succeeding, nor would similar proposals for others, such as Fillmore, Pierce or Buchanan. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Support. Although, among presidents, he is still lower tier, he did serve in a number of the nation's highest offices and, most specifically, my perception that his surname is relatively common is not supported by facts. There does not seem to be any notable competition to his primacy over the surname "Van Buren" and all the place names appear to have originated in his honor. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evidence? How about consistently getting around 4,000 views per day and sometimes over 10,000? [1] I didn't check all the other uses listed on the dab page but I can't imagine they get anywhere near this many hits, even combined (please let me know if I'm wrong!), not to mention that most if not all the other uses are named after the president, making him the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by historical significance as well as by the usage criterion. Sorry folks, but this is a no-brainer. --В²C ☎ 00:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unlike Trump, there's really no other serious contender for the title. Bertdrunk (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While Van Buren isn't a card game, Trump also isn't a city in Arkansas with a population of 22,791 and a dozen other US locations. If there's any concern that people will not know the president's name was Martin Van Buren (president) and president Van Buren will pick up Google searches and top right hand searches. The other factor at play here is maintenance. If Van Buren was moved out that would disable the dab bot, and make continuing manual maintenance of mis-links necessary. Who is going to do that? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article about that city in Arkansas typically gets under 100 views per day [2]. The article about the former president gets 40 times that or more[3]. So what's your point? You want to send the thousands searching for the president every day through the dab page to save a very few an extra click? Why be so cruel to so many? --В²C ☎ 19:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snort. Such cruelty. An extra link to click. Mind-boggling. older ≠ wiser 19:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, the "cruelty" of one extra click is all that is at stake here. The only question is whether a hundred per day, or thousands, are subjected to it. --В²C ☎ 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact, we're only talking about an average of 12 per day [4] older ≠ wiser 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Shows you how few search using WP Search and of what relatively little value there is in optimizing WP Search. Still, it's reasonable to assume the percentages among WP search box searchers are comparable to what the target page view counts indicate in terms of which pages they are more likely to be seeking. --В²C ☎ 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I was going to say "support", but statistics of the dabpage says that the views are very low. Very little number of people would exactly type "Van Buren", ~~and I don't think they associate it with the president.~~ --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC); Now I'm unsure what the readers were thinking when typing "Van Buren". 03:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- All that statistic tells us is that very few search with "Van Buren" on WP. It tells us nothing about how many of those who are searching are seeking the president vs. the other uses. The page view counts on those other pages does tell us however that the president is far more likely to be sought than any of the other uses. That said, if you're looking up the name of a president, why bother typing anything more than their surname? Searching for this president, what else is someone going to search with? Type in the entire "Martin Van Buren"? How would actually do that and why? On Google Trends the searches for "van buren" dominate the searches for "martin van buren" by about 7 to 1[5], so I think it's safe to say "martin van buren" is not what they're entering compared to "van buren". So, among the few that are using WP search, what are they using to search for those president if not "van buren"? --В²C ☎ 17:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - More articles (but not all). I could not include others that were named after the president. Combining ten articles, the total in 2016 is 82,001 views (excluding the dabpage) vs. 1,000,000+ for the president. George Ho (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. The usage standard to the primary topic relative to other articles is: "more likely than all the other topics combined" (to be the one likely to be searched). You've established that. Plus most if not all of these are named after the president, which again establishes primary topic by historical significance. I honestly don't understand the opposition here. --В²C ☎ 01:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to support for now - I checked the articles, and most of the articles using "Van Buren" say that the naming was inspired by the President. Even the video game article says the name was based on the president. There is USS John J. Van Buren (DE-753), but statistics says the number of views is very small. --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the surname dabpage has the same numbers as the main dabpage... well, slightly more when totaling 2016 numbers, but almost the same. George Ho (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support searching "Van Buren" in Google Books primarily gives results on the President, plus most other articles with this name are named for him. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.